Talk:Wasilla High School

Coatrack

While the school is probably most notable for the Palin's right now, eventually the information needs to be trimmed down as this seems like a WP:COATRACK. Eóin (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Could you provide some suggestions as to what I should remove in Sarah Palin's section? I'm not really sure what to trim down. Cunard (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is Levi Johnston? Unfortunately yes I do know of him from the media inserting themselves into his life. The article appears to assume the reader knows who he is without explanation or wiki link. I see from the edit history he was not in the article prior to Gov. Palin becoming the Republican presumptive nominee for Vice President. The line stating his relation to the Palin family was removed, probably for not being encylopedic. Either he needs to be removed from the article too or something relevant needs to be written about his relation to the Palin family that doesn't look like tabloid trash. Skywayman (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree and removed the section on her. This article is about the school at to go into much more detail then to say she went there is biased. She is mentioned in the opening and in the alumni section. The other details should be in her article not the school. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 01:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Could we come to a compromise about this section? I'm thinking about maybe keeping this part: "On August 29, 2008, the day John McCain announced Palin as his running mate, Wasilla decided to create T-shirts honoring Palin's nomination. Wasilla's principal, Dwight Probasco, declared that the shirts would read "Wasilla High School, home of Sarah Palin and the Warriors." I agree that the rest of the section that you removed should go. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine if it is sourced. I would say it would go in the alumni section and make her a sub catagory of that section not create its own section just for her (if that makes sense). Like this maybe:

Notable alumni

Sarah Palin

The Governor of Alaska and presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee for the 2008 United States presidential election. On August 29, 2008, the day John McCain announced Palin as his running mate, Wasilla decided to create T-shirts honoring Palin's nomination. Wasilla's principal, Dwight Probasco, declared that the shirts would read "Wasilla High School, home of Sarah Palin and the Warriors."

Why "presumptive" ?? In a few hours it is "official" as if it's going to change. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a cut and paste from the current article. She was probably added last week and presumptive seemed fitting then. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin

The husband of Sarah Palin and First Gentleman of Alaska

Bristol Palin

The daughter of Todd and Sarah Palin. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've broke the alumni section into third-level sections with the information mentioned above. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Palins

Removed unnecessary references, as each mention the school in its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wicks Steve (talk • contribs) 12:30, 7 December 2013‎ (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of the sources. Wikipedia cannot be a reference for itself because its content is user-generated. Using Wikipedia as a source would violate Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because I have been informed differently, if this is not just your opinion then show me the rule. If you revert again we will need to take seek conciliation.

Each of the articles provides citations which are the source required relating to attendance at this school, as such, there is absolutely no reason or need to repeat those citations in this separate article.

Wicks Steve (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wicks Steve, there is no need to edit war over this. I don't understand why more citations is a bad thing. Cunard linked the applicable rule, which is WP:V. Content is decided by consensus, as you probably know. I feel Cunard is absolutely right. If people want to follow up more, the refs are available here without going to another page. How is that a bad thing? John from Idegon (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ALUMNI says "Individual alumni need a citation to a) verify that they did indeed attend the school, and b) verify the statement of their notability in their short one or two line description. When alumni have their own articles in mainspace, it is not necessary for their notability to be referenced, as long as it is done in the biographical articles." But "not necessary" doesn't mean the same thing as "not allowed". I agree with Cunard and John from Idegon that inline footnotes in the alumni list are fine, and perhaps even desirable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

and with that it appears we have consensus to reinstate them, so i will. John from Idegon (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Cunard, John from Idegon, Arxiloxos I must admit, I have to agree with Wicks Steve on this, all the dupliacted references are unnecessary and unsightly. Cubertast (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to side with Wicks Steve and Cubertast on this issue. "Not necessary... as long as it is done in the biographical articles", agreed. "the same thing as not allowed", did Wicks Steve make such a claim? As for "not a bad thing", too much unnecessary clutter is always a bad thing. Destiny Gerbil (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I am also curious why the same rigorous scrutiny was not applied to alumni from other schools which some of you have edited. For example those from Van Nuys High School, Edwardsburg High School or Washington High School. Are you able to quote the relevant rule regarding editing inconsistency, or, as I suspect, was this hasty consensus somehow manufactured? Destiny Gerbil (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes are not "clutter". Take a look at some of the featured articles listed at WP:SCHOOLS, such as Amador Valley High School or Plano Senior High School; these alumni lists are well-footnoted. This kind of careful inline sourcing takes time and work, and WP:ALUMNI tells us that we don't have to delete the names that don't have footnotes yet as long as the sourcing can be found elsewhere, but there's no reason to delete in-line sources once they have been added. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no consensus to remove the footnotes. This has to be the stupidest thing I have ever seen disputed on Wikipedia. An encyclopedia is a source of information. No-one has addressed the question I asked way back at the beginning of this discussion. How is more information a bad thing? We don't edit this just for our own joys. We are creating a source of information. Seriously, what possible justification is there for the removal of valid sources? The original poster here cited no policy to justify his action; those who have posted subsequently have cited nothing but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Do we really have to have dispute resolution to solve this? John from Idegon (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Good grief John, you were willing to introduce the term consensus when you wanted to justify your hasty revert, but when that consensus of opinion appears to change, you complain that it isn't justified, that seems rather immature. Wicks Steve (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sex Education

I read the article that was linked in the article, but I didn't see anything saying that it was NOT abstinence only. I do acknowledge that in this article, that the principal said that he's "not sure," but thinks that it's not abstinence only. This article should be linked, along with an explanation that the principle is unsure.

Take a look at the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District health education scope documents (the school is a part of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District).

All of the documents that discuss the type of sex education offered contain instructions that abstinence only education should be taught (especially the high school one), but NONE of them indicate anything about teaching about contraception. In fact, I couldn't even find contraception mentioned in them.

This suggests that if it's not abstinence only (it may very well be), that it has a strong bias toward abstinence. We could quote the policy from those documents. The principal's statement that Bristol Palin's pregnancy is a "teaching moment" should also be included.

-Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"The principal's statement that Bristol Palin's pregnancy is a "teaching moment" should also be included." : Why? This is an article about the school, not about Bristol or Sarah Palin. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It helps indicate the school's stance on sex education. He did call it a "teaching moment," after all. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see why this information is necessary and should be included on this page. The information given does not seem noteworthy. --Rhall28 (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The source is now behind a paywall so cannot be easily assessed. However, I have removed the content as Nathan J. Yoder's comments above indicates that the information about the contraception is original research. The information about abstinence-only was mainly due to Bristol Palin's pregnancy so I agree that unless a better source is found, it should be omitted from the article. Cunard (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Bristol Alumni

The articles say she went there but transferred to a different school. Is she considered alumni? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin is definitely not an alumnae of Wasilla High School. She transferred to another school and still hasn't graduated from that school yet, but she did attend this school and her attendance may be notable. There are two ways this issue may be fixed. 1) We can remove Bristol Palin from the list because she is not notable enough to have an article of her own (Bristol Palin redirects to Sarah Palin#Personal life). Or 2) We can retitle the Notable alumni section to be "Notable people" as in the featured article Stuyvesant High School#Notable people. I prefer the second option because then we may be able to expand on Bristol's impact on the school. The section above this one is discussing whether the principal's statement of Bristol's pregnancy being a "teaching moment" should be included in the article. If it is decided to include Bristol in the section about sex education, then she should be mentioned as a notable attendee of the school. I've reworded the title of that section to be "Notable people." Feel free to remove Bristol Palin from the notable people list if you believe she doesn't belong there. Cunard (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

According to most definitions former students even if they do not graduate are considered alumni. I think the "Notable people" title is used to include teachers. Either title seems acceptable. Eóin (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest leaving Bristol Palin out of this article. The Wikipedia community consensus elsewhere was that she did not need an article and was known only for one event. Additionally, editors were concerned about WP:BLP issues. As she grows older and asserts herself more, she may merit her own article and a listing here. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Standards of inclusion as a notable alumnus are lower than those required to merit an individual article. At a minimum, there would seem to be no reason not to include her in her mother's listing, say "Palin's daughter Bristol attended Wasilla High for part of her junior year" with the source provided. She is already mentioned in her mother's article, and there would appear to be no genuine BLP issue with mentioning her attendance at the school, regardless of her notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how there's a lower threshold for notability for alumni than for articles. We have a lot (200+) of guidelines and policies and Im certainly not up to speed on all of them-- is there something about levels of notability that applies here?

Here are some other discussions:

• Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 6
• Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 7
• Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 8
• Talk:Bristol Palin
• Wikipedia talk:Notability#Bristol Palin
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive166

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added Bristol Palin into her mother's listing per your suggestion. According to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people, "inclusion on the list should be determined by the criteria above" in the WP policy. So you're right. Since Bristol Palin isn't notable enough to have an article, she shouldn't have a separate entry. But due to her recent media coverage, I believe that she warrants a brief mention in her mother's section. Cunard (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Minutia

I cut all the headings introducing 2-sentences each. This article is filled with minutia, even now. Please try to add more relevant info in the future. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up the article. In the future, I'll be sure to group sentences into paragraphs and paragraphs into sections. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin category

I don't understand why we keep removing the Sarah Palin category from this article. KConWiki (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Otto why he removed it. Cunard (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added Category:Sarah Palin to this article since this category contains articles like Wasilla, Alaska and Gravina Island Bridge, which are articles related to Palin, but not specifically about her. Otto4711 (talk · contribs) has not responded to my question after 15 days, so s/he probably doesn't care about this discussion. If any editor has an objection to the re-addition of this category, feel free to remove it and provide a good reason for its removal at this talk page. Cunard (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack

I would suggest either adding some other notable alumni aside from the Palins or reducing it to just Sarah Palin. --Antonyriggs (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've re-added Bristol Palin to the article because she is a notable alumna of the school. This is not a coatrack because Bristol is mentioned in only one sentence in a paragraph that is mainly about her mother. I have searched for other notable alumni but cannot find any. Cunard (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the mention of Bristol Palin as she is not a notable alumna of the school. What makes her notable exactly? If she is only mentioned in regards to her mother then I am sure her inclusion on Sarah Palin's main entry would suffice. The section is suppose to be on notable alumna not the Palin family perhaps the whole section should be reconsidered. Antonyriggs (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Notable Alumni section should follow the same format as other high schools on Wikipedia with Notable Alumni entries. For example George Washington High School (New York City) also George Washington High School (San Francisco) it simply has the persons name with a link to their wikipedia entry and a brief sentence of what they are notable for. Antonyriggs (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Your changes have made the notable alumni section more readable. I've re-added Levi Johnston because he is a notable attendee of the school. I've also re-added the references and expanded the entry about Sarah Palin. Is this a suitable compromise? Cunard (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree and removed the expanded entry for Sarah Palin. Other Notable Alumni sections have brief one sentence explanations. I think the facts about being Governor and a VP candidate is sufficient. The added information about the McCain announcement date and the t-shirts could be added above to the general information about the school since it was introduced by the principle and was presumably sold/offered at the school. Antonyriggs (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved the information about the T-shirts to the lead. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems more consistent Antonyriggs (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dropout Rate

Any objection to changing the heading of the section "Dropout Rate" to "Graduation Rate"? The two terms are describing the same thing. However, they have very different connotations. --Rhall28 (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I have changed the title, as the content under that title is more about the graduation rate than the dropout rate. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Removals in April 2011

Discussion moved from User talk:Cunard#Wasilla High School

"→Academics: removed original research; "allowing students to receive college credit for automotive technology classes" is not verified by the provided reference"

I believe this information is verified by the given reference: http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/ctc/programs/services/techprep/students.cfm

At the top of this page it states that "Students are able to earn college credit by completing approved coursework at the partner institution."

Then, it proceeds to list "The following schools have Tech Prep agreements in these programs of study". At the bottom of the page, it lists "Automotive Technology" under Wasilla High School.

"→Extracurricular activities: removed content sourced to links that fail to even mention Wasilla High School"

Why remove these extracurricular activities instead of just removing the links? The choice of which activities and links to keep seems random. All of the remaining links fail to mention Wasilla High School. The activities remaining are not the more notable activities, many of the larger, more important programs were removed.

"→Athletics: cleaned up – prose instead of list"

Why did you remove cheerleading? Why did you use the word "include" when you could have just added cheerleading and said "are"? - Since all the other sports offered are listed.

--Rhall28 (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

For the first source, I skimmed the page and did not locate the information about the college credit. Thank you for providing the quote above, and my apologies for failing to notice it. I restored that content.

For the extracurricular activities, I checked the sources, which were links to http://www.closeup.org/ and http://www.roseurbanruralexchange.org/index.php/sister-school-exchange/about. Neither of these sources mention Wasilla High School. Feel free to restore the information when you find a source that verifies that Wasilla High School has participated in those activities. I did not remove the other information because it is verified by http://www.matsuk12.us/whs/site/Directory_List.asp?byType=50.

Using "are" is better than "include", so I will make that change. I didn't think Wasilla considered cheerleading to be a sport, but the source lists it under Athletics so I have restored cheerleading.

Thank you for your additions to the article and for your concise explanations here of your changes. Cunard (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for not making the activities citations clear enough.

Both Rose Urban Rural Exchange and Close up are listed in the source Wasilla High School Activities Directory: http://www.matsuk12.us/whs/site/Directory_List.asp?byType=50

My purpose for citing the websites http://www.closeup.org/ and http://www.roseurbanruralexchange.org/index.php/sister-school-exchange/about was to provide references for my summary sentences about these activities. I thought this would be beneficial because it is not apparent what these activities do from their names alone.

What about the other activities? - They are also listed on the Wasilla High School Activities Directory.

Band, Choir, & Drumline; Drama, Debate, & Forensics; Business Professionals of America; Car Club; International Culture Club; Japanese Honors Society; Science Olympiad; SkillsUSA; Thespian Society; Yearbook

--Rhall28 (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(end of copied section)

I have restored both Rose Urban Rural Exchange and Close Up since it sourced. I have restored http://www.roseurbanruralexchange.org/index.php/sister-school-exchange/about since it verifies the summary you provided. However, for Close Up, I don't think a link to the homepage is needed. Wikipedia has an article about Close Up Foundation, which will provide readers with sufficient background information.

Because the content in your last paragraph is listed on Wasilla High School Activities Directory, I have restored that information. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)